serious art discussion

I will start by saying that I believe that everything that has to do with high art has been done. Im talking painting, scultpure, drawing, photography, basically anything made by humans that is static. There is nothing new anymore.

I will start by saying that I believe that everything that has to do with high art has been done. Im talking painting, scultpure, drawing, photography, basically anything made by humans that is static. There is nothing new anymore.

I dont think that is the case with music, or film.

Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Well there's always going to be something new and refreshing. It's just not going to be as often. Every artist has their influences and more often than not their you see their influences in their work more than you see their originality. It's getting harder and harder to be original when with modern 24/7 media access, you can see just about anything and everything. This includes music and film. Any time a new music group comes out you can tell who they've been influenced by. The last time I've heard anything truly original in music is from Modest Mouse. Then there's also the almighty dollar. You're pretty much going to see and hear what the powers-that-be thinks they can make the most profit off of. A lot of your famous artists and writers from before the 20th century were technically commercial flops, had issues like Van Gogh for example, or were against society's norms. To look for anything original you'll have to look away from the crowd.

theres new stuff out there being explored not necesarily by artist per se, but deals with ppl involved with new media/technology implementation. if youre definition of art is restricted to the traditional sense, you wont see much beyond your own comprehension.

even MOMA awhile back did an expo with interactive/transient type of works, thats a pretty good place to start for you noobies with the 'theres nothing new to explore' mindset ;P

The realm of groundbreaking "high" art will shift toward emerging technologies. What would Da Vinci do with a 3 dimensional or holographic canvas? Depending on your definition of "static", this should qualify. What if Escher had the latest software and a Wacom? Also, more senses will be engaged; touch, smell and sound, in addition to visuals.

I can't believe that "art is done." The range of creativity in this world is endless; artists can dream up original material that will blow any casual viewer away. I keep thinking of artists like Brandon Bird, the guy who repainted the children's monsters (posted here a few months back,) Grimlocks Pretender Shell (who posts here)... These are all artists who have carved out a new, unique niche in the established world of "what is art?" and called it their own. And they've done a hell of a job!

Also, "art" in itself is incredibly subjective from viewer to viewer. (I mean, if we wanted to split hairs to the microscopic level, Eyeballkid's viewpoint itself is subjective - he thinks art is done. I certainly don't.) I think most TV-remote-armed armchair art critics are fed a pretty set understanding of "what is art" these days; from childhood, we're given a set of "who's who" of art names that we, through some enculturation, go "Aaaah, those are good artists." This name recognition and a similarly-fed explanation of eras of art, who painted how, why they painted it, etc., leads to a pretty fundamental basis for "what is art?" for most folks.

...and, sadly, a lot of people just leave their understanding and appreciation of art right there; they feel like they know enough about creativity and artistry to make it in life. That, in my opinion, is where you get a majority of the people in the world who - to single this board out, for example - will respond to artistic new steps in a different direction with "u suk that is shit" and leave the discussion. What more do they need to offer? They've used what they know about art (or what they care to remember) to judge that art.

Now, honestly, if you pushed those folks, I would assume that they might tell you that all art has been done. Honestly, I have trouble believing it coming from a BFA (no offense.) My fiance has a BFA and plenty of her friends are all still very involved in creating new stuff. Is it the same "creative, unique art" that is 100% set aside from any source material? No, contextual references slip in there occasionally. However, I'm of the firm belief that any artist growing up these days is, essentially, stuck in a post-Warhol world, where pop culture references - or brand name references or whatever - are an eventual inevitability.

Anyway. I'm getting long winded. I can't believe for a second that "art is dead" or "art is done." The level of subjectivity that goes into defining art as a medium, combined with the world of artists out there still creating new stuff that we've never seen, leads me to believe that art is very much alive, in whatever media you choose to define it. From groundbreaking film to crazy new brushstroke artists to strange sculptures made from Transformers limbs, yeah...art is very much alive and well.

no offense EBK but there must be something really wrong with you in the head (im serious here) where youre ready to accept the most implausible discussion yet can be close minded to claim something as open ended as art 'dead'.

But in a similar vein, I've wondered if the extraordinary ability we have to preserve artistic works now, both through digital dissemination and increasingly advanced preservation techniques for the original pieces, is dissuading contemporary artists from creating any works that might have to compete with historical masterpieces.

That's why I think there's this drive to create 'modern' art. Sometimes (I think, but again, me = no taste), it produces really amazing stuff (for example, lots of 3D modeling), while other times, you get "Urine Christ." Basically, rather than paint a portrait that will invite comparison to Raphael or Monet, and probably fall short in the process, artists today create works that can be judged alone, for good or bad.

Anyways, that's why I personally hope that eventually, works like the Sistine Chapel and the Mona Lisa are reclaimed by entropy. When something like that is permanent, it loses some of it's worth (to me, at least). Knowing something will eventually be lost makes it all the more precious in the now, and would encourage artists to produce works in the hopes of eventually filling the void, rather than just putting sharks into formaldehyde.

But in a similar vein, I've wondered if the extraordinary ability we have to preserve artistic works now, both through digital dissemination and increasingly advanced preservation techniques for the original pieces, is dissuading contemporary artists from creating any works that might have to compete with historical masterpieces.

That's why I think there's this drive to create 'modern' art. Sometimes (I think, but again, me = no taste), it produces really amazing stuff (for example, lots of 3D modeling), while other times, you get "Urine Christ." Basically, rather than paint a portrait that will invite comparison to Raphael or Monet, and probably fall short in the process, artists today create works that can be judged alone, for good or bad.

Anyways, that's why I personally hope that eventually, works like the Sistine Chapel and the Mona Lisa are reclaimed by entropy. When something like that is permanent, it loses some of it's worth (to me, at least). Knowing something will eventually be lost makes it all the more precious in the now, and would encourage artists to produce works in the hopes of eventually filling the void, rather than just putting sharks into formaldehyde.

Anyways, that's just me.

Click to expand...

great post!

i agree, there is an increasing tendency in the art community to go away from the artisan approach to art in favor of high concepts and shit. its the prevailing creative climate. the problem with the connected world is that its is impossible for you to be not aware of whats going on in the world. there is no such thing as being self contained these days. i had a friend who tried his best to avoid contemporary pop culture. he was a loony.

that said, i dont think artisan type artist are dead. you just dont read about em. its all in the marketing. that why somebody like, whats that guys name? norman rockwell? can be labeled kitsch in one era and hailed as relevant in another.

personally i believe in art within commercial parameters/constraint. theres less pseudo-intellectual babble and more actual results.

Okay, I might not know art, but I know what I like. I saw a collection of all his original Saturday Evening Post covers and a few other works at the High Museum in Atlanta years ago. I absolutely love his stuff--he's America's artist laureate as far as I'm concerned and I don't even know if there's such a thing. One of my favorites is his Four Freedoms, which takes that American ideal of freedom and really makes it about what everyone deserves.

His sorta-ideological heir to me is C.F. Payne, who does the back covers of Reader's Digest. I'm not as big a fan, but it's kinda cool stuff, and it captures scenes that didn't exist even a few years ago. So it that sense, I guess art is never static as long as life and culture are dynamic.

I'd never thought about the commerical thing, but both those artists were commerical at heart, so I definitely have to agree with you on that.

I can't believe that "art is done." The range of creativity in this world is endless; artists can dream up original material that will blow any casual viewer away. I keep thinking of artists like Brandon Bird, the guy who repainted the children's monsters (posted here a few months back,) Grimlocks Pretender Shell (who posts here)... These are all artists who have carved out a new, unique niche in the established world of "what is art?" and called it their own. And they've done a hell of a job!

Click to expand...

Hey, you forgot to name me…

Seriously though, I agree with you. The possibilities are indeed endless. In my work, I try to combine different elements from painting, drawing, graphic design, writing, etc. to create pieces that evoke feelings and ideas, or that can be seen as eye candy as well.

If art is dead then why is the Pop Surrialist movement flourishing and expanding?

NEw approaches to art are being done all the time.

Look at some new artists like Blaine fontana, Jeff Soto, Greg "Craola" Simpkins, Slick, Sam Flores, Joe Ledbetter, Amy Sol, Katy Olivias. This is a select few artists from one art movement. The list is pretty much endless as everyone else pointed out, Art is subjective.

Artists are pushing the boundaries in creativity in new and different ways all the time. You need to look for it bro. What is considered to be "High Art" is changing now as Artists liek Mark Ryden are selling out Gallery shows in established High art venues.

To say art is dead and then label this as a serious discussion is incredibly ignorant.

Art isn't dead, you've merely become so jaded that anything anyone creates does not meet your standards. As someone mentioned, art is subjective....what you may find boring may excite me to no end.

Just because something has been "done" doesn't make it any less good. I'm a big fan of fantasy and science fiction artists such as Wayne Barlowe, Brom, and Michael Whelan. Their styles have not changed much since they began doing novel covers, but still each thing they paint is amazing. Just because someone has painted a dragon, for example, before doesn't make one of those artists any less inspiring or talented.

we're just starting to get really amazing 3D art. people will always find new things tp paint/draw/sculpt, and on different canvases.

people can make art out of anything, cars, rocks, clouds, holograms, things that don't exist yet like metal you can mold with your bare hands, some kind of ice like material that won't melt, you get the idea. When we run out of things to make art out of, we'll just create more and different things to use! And then we'll paint and draw pictures of those!